truth > lies

Sick of Republican False Claims About the WMD Debate Before the War?

Posted in Uncategorized by johnnycougar on December 28, 2005

I am too. But here is a post I made with some information I dredged up in an argument with a govenment apoligist on another message board:

What all you Bush supporters have failed to address is this question:

Why did Bush invade while the weapons inspectors were still in Iraq and finding nothing?

Bush invaded anyways because he guessed that the weapons inspectors were wrong. Why do you support a war started on a flawed guess? Shouldn’t a rational leader require proof first?

You want evidence of people saying there were no WMD in Iraq??? You got it. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice themselves said he had no WMD. Take a look here:


He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. Colin Powell; Cairo, Egypt, 02/24/2001

Oh, really, Mr. Powell?

“We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” Condoleeza Rice, July, 2001

What’s that Ms. Rice? Are you saying that Saddam was not a threat?

From this pre-war article in the Guardian, we learn:

But some of the key allegations against the Iraqi regime were not supported by intelligence currently available to the administration. Mr Bush repeated a claim already made by senior members of his administration that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminium tubes “for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons”. The tubes were also mentioned by Tony Blair in his dossier of evidence presented to parliament last month.

However, US government experts on nuclear weapons and centrifuges have suggested that they were more likely to be used for making conventional weapons.

“I would just say there is not much support for that [nuclear] theory around here,” said a department of energy specialist.

David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector who was consulted on the purpose of the aluminium tubes, said it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for a uranium centrifuge.

Mr Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said: “There’s a catfight going on about this right now. On one side you have most of the experts on gas centrifuges. On the other you have one guy sitting in the CIA.”


There is already considerable scepticism among US intelligence officials about Mr Bush’s claims of links between Iraq and al-Qaida. In his speech on Monday, Mr Bush referred to a “very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year”.

An intelligence source said the man the president was referring to was Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was arrested in Jordan in 2001 for his part in the “millennium plot” to bomb tourist sites there. He was subsequently released and eventually made his way to Iraq in search of treatment. However, intercepted telephone calls did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government.

There is also profound scepticism among US intelligence experts about the president’s claim that “Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases”.

Bob Baer, a former CIA agent who tracked al-Qaida’s rise, said that there were contacts between Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the early 1990s and in 1998: “But there is no evidence that a strategic partnership came out of it. I’m unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the United States.”

Also, this book was written and published before we invaded Iraq. And it comes from Scott Ritter, a weapons inspector himself. I bought this book in the Winter of 2002. It has turned out to be dead on accurate.

So, in conclusion, a review of the evidence shows that a majority of experts, including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice themselves thought Saddam did not have an intact WMD program before the war. This completely refutes the Republican false claim that everyone thought there were WMD in Iraq, and proves that Rice and Powell were overtly lying about it.

So now, we have proven that there was serious doubt that Iraq had WMD, the primary justification Bush used to start the war. And that Rice and Powell were being intentionally deceptive. And that the people who knew the most about it, the weapons inspectors, were the most skeptical. And Bush decided that he didn’t care what they were saying, and invaded anyway.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: